Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Canon 300D...... LENSES?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Canon 300D...... LENSES?

 
 
Linda_N
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2004
"Tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:7UM9d.19692$(E-Mail Removed). com...
> Sigma lenses are at their best on paper. Once you put them on a camera
> they
> tend to look poorer and poorer.
>

That's one opinion not shared by all. For the new lenses announced I'll wait
with opinion until I have a change to try them or until a known reviewer of
lenses does and comments, or until enough that purchased them have provided
feedback. If they turn out to be as good as, or better than like offerings
by Canon, I'll not have a problem buying them at the 'assumed' cheaper price
they will retail for. If Canon is the same price, same quality and
performance than I'd tend to stick with Canon just out of habit.

Linda


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2004
Sigma is at the absolute worst when it comes to compatibility with later
bodies. Remember the Sigma lens that appears cheaper will get more expensive
when it fails to work on your next camera. Here is my experience with Sigma.
You may ignore it if you wish, but don't say you weren't warned.
Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on a
current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.
A friend sent them a lens that took six months to re-chip and it came
back ready to go on his Elan II but then would not work on my EOS 3 - a
model that was on the market when the lens was sent in for re-chipping.
Sigma would not re-chip it a second time.
My own Sigma lens that was "Too old" to rechip - it was six years old. I
was still using my 13 year old first Canon zoom on our fifth Canon body at
the time so I have a different view of "old" than the slime buckets at
Sigma.
You are trading price for performance AND for permanence. Sigma is always
a bad deal.

http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html


"Linda_N" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ECaad.3299$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:7UM9d.19692$(E-Mail Removed). com...
> > Sigma lenses are at their best on paper. Once you put them on a camera
> > they
> > tend to look poorer and poorer.
> >

> That's one opinion not shared by all. For the new lenses announced I'll

wait
> with opinion until I have a change to try them or until a known reviewer

of
> lenses does and comments, or until enough that purchased them have

provided
> feedback. If they turn out to be as good as, or better than like offerings
> by Canon, I'll not have a problem buying them at the 'assumed' cheaper

price
> they will retail for. If Canon is the same price, same quality and
> performance than I'd tend to stick with Canon just out of habit.
>
> Linda
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004
In message <Twhad.56114$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
"Tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
>save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on a
>current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
>re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.


But don't you think that eventually they will discover all of the
EOS-mount secrets? They are not infinite. They may have discovered
them already. Lots of people feel that as of about 2001 Sigma has
figured it out completely.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
Linda_N
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <Twhad.56114$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
> "Tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
>>save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on a
>>current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
>>re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.

>
> But don't you think that eventually they will discover all of the
> EOS-mount secrets? They are not infinite. They may have discovered
> them already. Lots of people feel that as of about 2001 Sigma has
> figured it out completely.
> --


I'm trying to hunt down the article I read on one of the tech wires that
said exactly this. Sigma has cleaned its act up in the past few years
(2001/02) and as a result is a serious contender for the mass consumer
market (now the most profitable market to control in electronics in general,
not just digi cams [including dSLR]), the same one Canon and Nikon are
trying to cut into with mass consumer level lenses.

The article did mention that Sigma would have to work extra hard because of
its poor performance in years past, but also noted that with the mass
consumption of digital cameras growing the greatest from 2003 - 2004 (when
Sigma has done well) Sigma picked the perfect time to start performing in
2001/02. Those masses just entering into digital photography (never did dSLR
film previously) will care little or even know of Sigma's past performance,
they'll only care what they can get for reasonable prices today.

Linda


 
Reply With Quote
 
~Darrell Larose~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004

> Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
> save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on a
> current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
> re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.
>

Wrong, Sigma, Tamron et al pay licencing fees, otherwise they would be sued
for Patent infrigement (Just ask Kodak about that!).



 
Reply With Quote
 
Big Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:46:27 GMT, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>In message <Twhad.56114$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
>"Tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
>>save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on a
>>current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
>>re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.

>
>But don't you think that eventually they will discover all of the
>EOS-mount secrets? They are not infinite. They may have discovered
>them already. Lots of people feel that as of about 2001 Sigma has
>figured it out completely.


Do a Google search using the words, Digital Rebel Problems.
Check the answers to see what the most often voiced problem is.

For those who are Google Challenged, it's Sigma Lenses.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Big Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:08:45 -0400, "~Darrell Larose~" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>> Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
>> save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on a
>> current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
>> re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.
>>

>Wrong, Sigma, Tamron et al pay licencing fees, otherwise they would be sued
>for Patent infrigement (Just ask Kodak about that!).
>
>

Whether they (Sigma) do or not, their lenses are the most frequently
voiced problems with the Digital Rebel based on a Google search for
Digital Rebel Problems.
If Sigma does indeed pay for Canon's information, then they are even
worse than I imagined, since they get it so wrong in their lenses when
used on Canon cameras.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
grant kinsley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2004
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:41:17 -0700, Big Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:08:45 -0400, "~Darrell Larose~" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
>>> save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on a
>>> current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
>>> re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.
>>>

>>Wrong, Sigma, Tamron et al pay licencing fees, otherwise they would be sued
>>for Patent infrigement (Just ask Kodak about that!).
>>
>>

>Whether they (Sigma) do or not, their lenses are the most frequently
>voiced problems with the Digital Rebel based on a Google search for
>Digital Rebel Problems.
>If Sigma does indeed pay for Canon's information, then they are even
>worse than I imagined, since they get it so wrong in their lenses when
>used on Canon cameras.


Sigma does not pay licensing fees, they reverse engineer their lens
mounts to Canon's bodies. Consequently they don't necessarily use the
full code that Canon does. Which is exactly why they need re-chipping,
and is exactly why they are not infringing patent.

G
>
>Bill Funk
>Change "g" to "a"


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2004
I don't think they give a damn. And Canon does add new features to the mount
which they can do as their own lenses are fully compatible - not fudged by
someone looking to save a couple bucks.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <Twhad.56114$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
> "Tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
> >save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on

a
> >current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
> >re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.

>
> But don't you think that eventually they will discover all of the
> EOS-mount secrets? They are not infinite. They may have discovered
> them already. Lots of people feel that as of about 2001 Sigma has
> figured it out completely.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2004
And who wrote the article? Who employed whomsoever wrote it? How much
Sigma advertising was in the magazine or on the website that published the
article? In a world where Herbert Keppler has been "discovering" great
bargains for 40 years, and guess what SUCHANDSUCH store has just found
another 10,000 of them to sell! I don't trust anything that cannot be
verified by other REAL people. The world is full of flaks out pushing crap -
like Sigma.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Linda_N" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cHvad.3331$(E-Mail Removed)...
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > In message <Twhad.56114$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
> > "Tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >>Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
> >>save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on

a
> >>current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
> >>re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.

> >
> > But don't you think that eventually they will discover all of the
> > EOS-mount secrets? They are not infinite. They may have discovered
> > them already. Lots of people feel that as of about 2001 Sigma has
> > figured it out completely.
> > --

>
> I'm trying to hunt down the article I read on one of the tech wires that
> said exactly this. Sigma has cleaned its act up in the past few years
> (2001/02) and as a result is a serious contender for the mass consumer
> market (now the most profitable market to control in electronics in

general,
> not just digi cams [including dSLR]), the same one Canon and Nikon are
> trying to cut into with mass consumer level lenses.
>
> The article did mention that Sigma would have to work extra hard because

of
> its poor performance in years past, but also noted that with the mass
> consumption of digital cameras growing the greatest from 2003 - 2004 (when
> Sigma has done well) Sigma picked the perfect time to start performing in
> 2001/02. Those masses just entering into digital photography (never did

dSLR
> film previously) will care little or even know of Sigma's past

performance,
> they'll only care what they can get for reasonable prices today.
>
> Linda
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, b Mike Henley Digital Photography 43 12-15-2004 05:21 PM
Difference between Canon G5 and Canon S50 zxcvar Digital Photography 6 07-23-2003 09:47 AM
APS Canon IXUS versus digital Canon IXUS ( a question for the pros ) Davidgilmour2003@hotmail.com Digital Photography 4 07-20-2003 05:48 AM
Canon ixus 400 or canon ixus 2 ? David J. Gilmour Digital Photography 7 07-20-2003 12:00 AM
reading compact flash on different camera than used to take photos (canon to canon) Jim Digital Photography 0 07-15-2003 08:13 PM



Advertisments